However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, at the end of April 2018, would allow a working loan by creating a false transaction performance and raising credit rating from a singishing staff member under the name of “B lending counselor” at the end of the end of April 2018.

“On receipt of a proposal to the effect that “, and upon receipt of the proposal, inform the person in default of his name the KEB Account (C) number in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, on May 3, 2018, the Defendant was transferred KRW 7 million to the KEB bank account of the said Defendant at around 11:19 on the same day from the victim, on the false ground that “If the said employee misrepresented the 7 million won loan from the victim at a high interest rate, he/she would be required to transfer the existing loan amount of KRW 7 million to the account designated as it is possible to make additional loans up to the amount desired to be low interest rate for the previous loan products.”

On May 3, 2018, the Defendant released KRW 6,890,000,000, out of the above KRW 7,000,00,000, which was remitted at a new branch of Dong-dong KEB Han Bank, in accordance with the direction of the “B Loan Counseling Institute”, and then delivered the same to the staff of the E-F store in front of the E-B store at around 12:00 on the same day.

Accordingly, the Defendant made it easy to commit the fraud of the above-mentioned person without his name, etc., and prevented it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written complaints and statements of D;

1. Application of each of the financial transaction information, Kakao Stockholm message, and CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a written confirmation of transfer results;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act mitigated for aiding and abetting, and Article 55(1)3 of the same Act

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Consideration of favorable circumstances among the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order recognized the facts charged of this case.